>Not religion but confirmed by the same IEA a few months ago.the undulating plateau myth is propagated by the IEA mass media hype department, while its fact and figure department reports the contrary.The IEA is an agent of the oil and banking business, and duly parrots any scare and hype message they want injecting into the mass media.It can have contrary operations like this because anyone savy with the oil industry knows the scare and hype is unfounded BS, and they also know that it has to be done to scare the market into amping the trading price of oil. ( fear of scarcity drives up prices ). Meanwhile the public aren't interested enough to compare the figures with the headlines, so just believe the headline.As for the peak_oil_doom_is_now religion.... hmmm ... what they gonna go for? IEA scare and hype headlines or IEA figures saying everythings OK?

Get used to it. The IEA scare and hype headlines have always been as baseless as any doom-monger website headline.

According to the IEA : Oil supply has been shooting up fast for at least 18 years. These figures are taken from the September issues of their world oil reports where possible.http://omrpublic.iea.org/use the 'see archives' box to get the world supply reports, which are usually around page 50.

Interesting list but let's take a look at it. First thing is it is a list of Production not of supply. Two very different things. Then let us look at inflation adjusted prices for those same years. InflationData.com U.S. Average (in $/bbl.) Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted

1992 $19.25 $30.96 1993 $16.75 $26.18 1994 $15.66 $23.84 1995 $16.75 $24.81 1996 $20.46 $29.42 1997 $18.64 $26.21 1998 $11.91 $16.50 1999 $16.56 $22.38 2000 $27.39 $35.88 2001 $23.00 $29.33 2002 $22.81 $28.59 2003 $27.69 $33.98 2004 $37.66 $44.96 2005 $50.04 $57.77 2006 $58.30 $65.25 2007 $64.20 $69.75 2008 $91.48 $95.57 2009 $53.48 $56.15 2010 $71.21 $73.69 2011 $87.04 $87.03 You can see that the inflation adjusted price has doubled in just six years. The same six years where world economies have gone to hell in a hand cart. Cause and effect perhaps? Next we might want to look at that production chart against a chart of world population or per-capita consumption. Not quite so rosy a picture here as world population rose from 5.8 to 7 billion or twenty percent while oil production rose by thirty percent indicating a rise in per-capita consumption and demand. I doubt we can continue to supply that demand trend by cooking tar sands in Canada and prying oil out from deep water arctic deposits. Sure we are plugging the gap between conventional crude and demand with more expensive substitutes at present but as the gap grows wider the limits to the production rates of these substitutes will be reached. Having a trillion barrels OBE in tar sands does not help as it takes quite a bit more then flipping a switch to make that oil flow.

If you ever bother reading the thread before posting vtsnowedin, you'd see - we can keep plugging the gap with 'substitutes' . oil from Shale is plentiful and at only $50pb to produce, its cheap.- Not that we need to. Most of the new supply is likely from the 2001 middle east crude oil bonanza, and there's a heck of lot more to come from that.- The world economy is kept unstable my money changers. It's nothing to do with the supposed diminishing EROEI, or peaking of crude oil. Such ecomonies have been intentionally kept unstable for thousands of years.

The price of oil is controled by the energy cartel. It isn't a direct reflection of supply and demand. Your oracle, Matt Simmons , kept alluding to this when he said the market mechanism between supply and demand is broken.

Peak_oil_doomer 'have it both ways' ruleIf oil price is low ; then the market mechanism between supply and demand is brokenIf oil price is high ; its a true indication of oil value in the market

Actually, the market mechanism is permenantly broken. There's a different system in place. Before 2020, oil prices will crash. Why?With high oil prices, the oil industry is booming now, with start up companies flourishing along side the old establishment. Lots of new oil wells and supply.But the old establishment don't want to create competition for themselves. So before these new competitor companies become too big, they will be felled by low oil prices. The old establishment control the price of oil on the markets, and at their convenience they will axe the dollar price of a barrel of oil. The competitors will then either face bankruptcy or consolidation. It's an old cycle that repeats every 40 years or so.

>First thing is it is a list of Production not of supply.If so , and if there's a great difference between the 2, it just make the figures more compelling in what they say. 18 years of increasing oil production. But I don't thinks there's much difference, at least by IEA definitions.

meemoe_uk wrote:>What you seem to be missing is that many of the tasks that are economical to perform with $100 oil are not economical to perform at $10,000 oil.

What you seem to be missing is that dollars are a fiat currency. There were times in the 1st half of the 20th century Oil was 10 cents a barrel. How would you tell a kublikhan living in the 1930s depression that $20 oil was a really good price for a stable and prosperous economy? Wouldnt he say " There are many things that wouldn't be economical if the price was that high " ?As long as it is easier to do stuff by using oil than without, then the economy and dollars would evolve around any oil price.

But much of total money supply doesn't consist of fiat currency but unregulated derivatives. In which case, expect an increase in credit to veil the actual cost of extracting oil.

>Have you ever considered that you yourself belong to the religion of cornucopia? Of course. But the most compelling evidence is that peakers have been wrong about 'peak oil doom about now!' for over a hundred years, while cornys have said 'nope, just improving prosperity'. This year is no different. New oil supply highs for 2011.

I don't understand where you are getting this point about a hundred years. From what I know, Hubbert argued that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and that's what happened. Later, he argued that global oil production would peak in 1995 + 10, and the IEA is making the same claim. Finally, you already stated that the rise is partly caused by NGLs and non-conventional sources, which supports the BP report that shows how these are meeting increasing demand.

In which case, peak oil has not been disproven at all. If any, the evidence that you've presented shows that.

In contrast, why not look at, say, Yergin's forecasts regarding production, or even that of ARAMCO, which stated two years ago that by now they should be reaching 15 mb/d?

top peak oil man - Matt Simmons. One of the things I've learnt is that peakers have to ignore their own oracles if they are to believe peak oil is now, simply because this concept peak_oil_is_now is false, so there's bits of the peak oil myth that have to be ignored when the whole thing is put together.Matt would say $4000 was a good price for a barrel of oil, in 2005 dollars. Implicit in that is a reflection of the enormous EROEI of oil. He was saying that a 100 fold increase in the price of oil would be a true representation of the payback we get from oil. Therfore an EROEI of at least 100:1 is implied.

Alternatively, consider your own analysis. What are the main costs in the oil industry? Cost of fuel to create and run machinary? No.The dollar calcuations that infer land oil EROEI at around 30:1 assume the cost of dollars is 1:1. i.e. since the cost of creating a dollar ( a small piece of paper ) is negliable. However, you know that's not how it works. Oil companies have to rent oil equipment from banks at high cost. Banks have monopolised the oil industry ( like everything else ), and now ration out equipment tightly.In other words, any analysis done using actual dollar costs of oil companies is going to include the fiat renting cost of equipment, and if you try to work out EROEI from dollar costs, there's going to be a multipicative discrepancy from the real EROEI due to that rent.

From what I know, SA argues that the production cost is supposed to be $75 a barrel, and some banks insist it should be $90. I don't know what the price of oil should be following a trend, but maybe it should be around $60 and not almost double what it was in the past? Finally, given the price, shouldn't SA and others have been ramping up production to up to 95 mb/d at least, i.e., assuming increasing use of coal and non-conventionals, as BP reported?

Anyway, another main point I wanted to make about $10,000 oil is not how we'd get by when oil costs that amount. It was to put into perspective just how cheap oil is today. Peakers wail about how expensive it is at $100, and hype about $200 oil wiping out the economy. 1st, there are many rich countries that get by fine with high taxation on oil that brings the effective cost to way over $300pb already. Then there's Japan, arguably the most prosperous country in the world, certainly wrt health and longevity, and it has low oil consumption. So high oil costs = ok, low oil consumption = ok. Oil shale is $50pb in todays costs to produce, and there's over a hundred years supply. So no PO_doom_is_now prob.

But the problem is that high prices leads to high production costs, which is why SA is now claiming that production costs have gone up to $75?

I don't understand how oil shale has a hundred years' supply. Is that equivalent to something like 80-115 mb/d x 360 days x 100 years? How does this come in line with the IEA forecast that we should see at best a 9-pct increase in energy production for the next two decades, as well as the BP production and consumption chart for the past five years?

meemoe_uk wrote:But, guess what? Crude oil supply is likely going up as well. So likely no need to invoke the above argument.But from IEA data 'likely' is the best we can do. IEA oil figures include crude, bio and NGLs. Bio is explictly stated in the figures, so can be subtracted from the total. Without bio, world oil supply is still going up. But when it comes to NGLs, the IEA is a bit obscure. So the PO religion can hide behind this small obscurity and say " all new oil supply in the IEA figures is NGLs ", not that its a solid defense ( see above argument ).

But doesn't high oil prices lead to higher production costs for other sources of energy? Also, if the same IEA data should be seen as "likely," shouldn't we also consider what they've said about peak oil? Finally, doesn't the inclusion of non-conventionals validate peak oil?

meemoe_uk wrote:>Not religion but confirmed by the same IEA a few months ago.the undulating plateau myth is propagated by the IEA mass media hype department, while its fact and figure department reports the contrary.The IEA is an agent of the oil and banking business, and duly parrots any scare and hype message they want injecting into the mass media.It can have contrary operations like this because anyone savy with the oil industry knows the scare and hype is unfounded BS, and they also know that it has to be done to scare the market into amping the trading price of oil. ( fear of scarcity drives up prices ). Meanwhile the public aren't interested enough to compare the figures with the headlines, so just believe the headline.As for the peak_oil_doom_is_now religion.... hmmm ... what they gonna go for? IEA scare and hype headlines or IEA figures saying everythings OK?

Get used to it. The IEA scare and hype headlines have always been as baseless as any doom-monger website headline.

meemoe_uk wrote:If you ever bother reading the thread before posting vtsnowedin, you'd see - we can keep plugging the gap with 'substitutes' . oil from Shale is plentiful and at only $50pb to produce, its cheap.- Not that we need to. Most of the new supply is likely from the 2001 middle east crude oil bonanza, and there's a heck of lot more to come from that.- The world economy is kept unstable my money changers. It's nothing to do with the supposed diminishing EROEI, or peaking of crude oil. Such ecomonies have been intentionally kept unstable for thousands of years.

The price of oil is controled by the energy cartel. It isn't a direct reflection of supply and demand. Your oracle, Matt Simmons , kept alluding to this when he said the market mechanism between supply and demand is broken.

Peak_oil_doomer 'have it both ways' ruleIf oil price is low ; then the market mechanism between supply and demand is brokenIf oil price is high ; its a true indication of oil value in the market

Actually, the market mechanism is permenantly broken. There's a different system in place. Before 2020, oil prices will crash. Why?With high oil prices, the oil industry is booming now, with start up companies flourishing along side the old establishment. Lots of new oil wells and supply.But the old establishment don't want to create competition for themselves. So before these new competitor companies become too big, they will be felled by low oil prices. The old establishment control the price of oil on the markets, and at their convenience they will axe the dollar price of a barrel of oil. The competitors will then either face bankruptcy or consolidation. It's an old cycle that repeats every 40 years or so.

>First thing is it is a list of Production not of supply.If so , and if there's a great difference between the 2, it just make the figures more compelling in what they say. 18 years of increasing oil production. But I don't thinks there's much difference, at least by IEA definitions.

Wait a minute: isn't plugging the gaps with substitutes proof of peak oil? Otherwise, we wouldn't be needing substitutes at all, right? At least, that's what I got from ARAMCO forecasting a 15 mb/d production level by 2011. And I think they have barely broken 10 mb/d.

As of November 2011, there were more than 100 active oil sands projects in Alberta. Of these, six mining projects have been approved; five of these projects are currently producing bitumen. The remaining projects use various in-situ recovery methods. By 2020, crude bitumen production is expected to more than double to 3.5 million bbl/d. On average it takes about two tonnes of mined oil sands to produce a barrel of SCO.

meemoe_uk wrote:Peak_oil_doom_is_now types should be ashamed of considering dismissing NGLs, shale, sand oil, reserve growth or whatever new source of oil crops up. The bottom line is - energy is energy. According to you lot oil was the only core energy source of today, and that all other energy sources were effectively deriviatives from crude oil,

You don´t understand then the concept of peak oil. And oil is the core energy source of today, or do you get, NGLs, shale, sand oil, Ethanol, Biodiesel, etc out of thin air? Could you produce any of them in current industrial levels without any input of oil at all?.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw

“You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

>I don't understand where you are getting this point about a hundred years.If you'd read my posts before commenting you'd know I was short handing for peakers and their predecessors, the running outers. Combined, they have been predicting oil doom for over 100 yeras.

Anyway.... I don't expect to convince any of you away from PO_Doom_is_now. I just want to show you the oil supply figures every year. How they go up every year. If PO was now then the figures would go DOWN every year. You'll have your excuses. I can say why they are flawed but you won't see.No doubt if I brought an oil is running out doomer from the 19th century into today and show him the rise in oil production thru the 20th and 21st centurys, he'd make an excuse for the oil rise not counting and then join you in shouting peak oil doom is about now!

see you all next year. Plenty more oil supply increase is going to come from the new golden age of oil supply that we live in.

meemoe_uk wrote:Anyway.... I don't expect to convince any of you away from PO_Doom_is_now. I just want to show you the oil supply figures every year. How they go up every year. If PO was now then the figures would go DOWN every year.

You are still very very confused. Peak oil is about when crude oil supply is no longer able to raise.

You show figures for all liquid hydrocarbons a different thing that in itself is an interesting debate, the cost and genuine value of many of the liquids we are now using to substitute for crude oil.

And peak oil is not about when crude oil supplies go down but when they can no longer raise.

You refuse to listen to what people are saying, refuse to understand peoples positions yet continue with inflammitory abusive posts. It comes across that you are more interested in the abuse than discussing your views.

meemoe_uk wrote:Anyway.... I don't expect to convince any of you away from PO_Doom_is_now. I just want to show you the oil supply figures every year. How they go up every year. If PO was now then the figures would go DOWN every year. You'll have your excuses. I can say why they are flawed but you won't see.

You keep making the common corny mistake of referring to everyone here who is NOT cornucopian as a doomer. That is your failure. You reject anyone who points out the fallacy in your argument with this simple and common mistake. Its an obvious deflection and intentional diversion from constructive debate. It's also childish.

Your refusal to understand the difference between TOTAL LIQUIDS increases and the PLATEAU of global CRUDE production, is a sure sign that you do not get the basic concepts of Peak Oil, nor do you want to attempt to understand them. There will be no "Doom", most of us who grasp the picture understand that. What there will be, when it becomes common knowledge that decline has begun, is economic contraction, lifestyle change(forced), and possibly serious resource conflict on a global scale. Thats not doom, and its not Die-off.

Your constant claim of TOTAL LIQUIDS increases is MISSING THE POINT as others here have tried to enlighten you to. Those of us who tend to gravitate towards seeking REASONS and CAUSE for the facts available can grasp what the increase in total liquids means. Its simply the logical next step along the plateau as CRUDE PRODUCTION nears decline. Sometime not to long from now, even all that non crude supply wont be able to prop up your numbers.

Just because it didnt happen exactly when PO prognosticators said it would does not make them wrong. The inevitability of even total liquids decline will come. I think after looking at some of the agencies, like the EIA, IEA, etc, even their bullish outlook has changed quite dramatically in the last 5 years. Its no wonder..the facts don't support their rosy predictions of even a few years back.

This chart below is a glaring example of what i was talking about above...how you can connect the invisible dots between where we are NOW and where we need to be in a few very short years escapes me. I frankly cannot believe we bring on enough non conventional crude to bridge such a huge gap. If you can make a cogent, fact based argument supporting it, then do it. Stop yelling at doomers and come up with some sort of factual case that gets us across that giant gap..even out to just 2020! if you can do that I'll hang up my Airline pilot hat here at PO.com.

I recall a time just a few years ago..maybe 3 or 4..that very same august body giving us the chart above predicted global crude supplies would grow to almost 130mbpd by 2030. Interesting the change seen in just that short time span. Now the 2009 claim by the very same group says we wont get above 97mbpd. I wonder what that chart is going to look like in as little as the NEXT 5 YEARS!

meemoe_uk wrote:What you seem to be missing is that dollars are a fiat currency. There were times in the 1st half of the 20th century Oil was 10 cents a barrel. How would you tell a kublikhan living in the 1930s depression that $20 oil was a really good price for a stable and prosperous economy? Wouldnt he say " There are many things that wouldn't be economical if the price was that high " ?As long as it is easier to do stuff by using oil than without, then the economy and dollars would evolve around any oil price.

Do you understand how inflation works? In today's dollars, the price of oil was about $16 in 1928. About the same price it was in 1998. The fact that in 1928 dollars oil cost one dollar but in 1998 dollars oil cost over $10 is irrelevent. It was NOT 10x as expensive in '98 as in '28 in real terms, just inflation adjusted funny money. In real terms, the man of '28 had to give up about the same portion of his income as the man in '98 to buy oil. On the other hand, now the real price AND the nominal price of oil is over $100. The kub of today really does have to give up over 5x as much of his income to purchase oil as the kub of '98 or '28. If the real cost of oil further increased 100 fold as you suggest, kub could no longer afford to buy gasoline to put in his car. You could preach to kub all day about how a gallon of gas can do the work of 300 men, kub would just reply that he cannot afford to hire 300 men either. And it's not just poor kub who has to pay more for energy. That cost increase affects everything. The oil and gas companies too have to spend more on equipment, materials, energy costs, etc:

Costs to produce oil and gas rose 11 percent over the past six months and are expected to continue their surge, pressuring energy companies already being hit by countries that are demanding a bigger cut of profits, according to a new study. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a unit of information provider and consultancy IHS Inc (IHS.N), also said costs to build new refineries and petrochemical plants rose 8 percent in the last period.

"The oil and gas industry worldwide is suffering from sticker shock. While motorists may see the price at the pump, the industry is seeing very dramatic increases in costs," said Dan Yergin, chairman of CERA. The IHS/CERA Upstream Capital Costs Index (UCCI) rose to 196 at the end of the third quarter from the starting point of 100 in 2000, meaning that equipment that would have cost $100 at the start of that period would cost $196 now. The UCCI was 179 at the end of the first quarter.

Costs to drill new oil and gas projects have been rising steadily since 2005 due to sky-high demand for the steel, equipment and laborers. CERA had predicted that increases might slow earlier this year, but said they had increased their pace since that prediction.

The delays and cost increases have also supported the rising prices, increasing the real price to produce oil and keeping production levels down. "Delays and slowness of new capacity coming on -- that lag is putting a big foundation under prices," Yergin said. "The effect of these costs is the big under appreciated factor in today's prices."

The real cost of extracting oil is going up, not just the funny fiat money cost. It is really more expensive(monetarily and energy wise) to steam clean sand for oil than it is swing an axe and watch oil gush out. And few could afford to buy oil if it went to $10,000 a barrel. Thus the price of oil in real terms will never get that high, at least not at today's volume of production. Maybe a few tiny niche industries could afford to pay that price, but not 99% of the oil as used today.

AirlinePilot wrote:Your refusal to understand the difference between TOTAL LIQUIDS increases and the PLATEAU of global CRUDE production, is a sure sign that you do not get the basic concepts of Peak Oil, nor do you want to attempt to understand them.

Meemoe could you answer this one too? Do you realize that biofuels are included in total liquids and that biofuels are not oil? Do you also realize that if we are in fact producing large amounts of biofuels it is because we are seeking alternatives to oil? Thus pointing to large amounts of biofuels and other non-crude sources being produced actually weakens your case that crude oil is cheap and abundant?

kublikhan wrote:Meemoe could you answer this one too? Do you realize that biofuels are included in total liquids and that biofuels are not oil? Do you also realize that if we are in fact producing large amounts of biofuels it is because we are seeking alternatives to oil? Thus pointing to large amounts of biofuels and other non-crude sources being produced actually weakens your case that crude oil is cheap and abundant?

Meemoe has me on ignore so wont see this but the consaqunecies of this really need to be laid out.

We are burning food to run over sized cars because we cannot find enough crude to pump.

That burning of food means there is less for the poorer in the world to eat.

We have moved from when coal replaced grains as a means of transport (horse to rail) back to when grain has once again become a means of transport (biofuel). Whats more much of this is only possible with government subsidy because to grow the grains requires oil.

The 'long emergency' peak oil scenario is now snatching food of off poor Asian families tables to run down the mall in a pick up truck.

dorlomin wrote:[The 'long emergency' peak oil scenario is now snatching food of off poor Asian families tables to run down the mall in a pick up truck.

How did you know I'd be reading that while eating a slice of pizza I just made a ten mile round trip for in a 4X4 pickup???I did drop off mail at the PO and picked up wine for the girls so it was a combined trip at least.

dorlomin wrote:[The 'long emergency' peak oil scenario is now snatching food of off poor Asian families tables to run down the mall in a pick up truck.

How did you know I'd be reading that while eating a slice of pizza I just made a ten mile round trip for in a 4X4 pickup???I did drop off mail at the PO and picked up wine for the girls so it was a combined trip at least.

meemoe_uk wrote:>I don't understand where you are getting this point about a hundred years.If you'd read my posts before commenting you'd know I was short handing for peakers and their predecessors, the running outers. Combined, they have been predicting oil doom for over 100 yeras.

I read your posts but your arguments don't make sense. Not only did you ignore every counter-argument I raised, you just repeat the same mistakes. The most important is that the very same organization that you use to bolster your argument you also criticize. So which is which?

Anyway.... I don't expect to convince any of you away from PO_Doom_is_now. I just want to show you the oil supply figures every year. How they go up every year. If PO was now then the figures would go DOWN every year. You'll have your excuses. I can say why they are flawed but you won't see.No doubt if I brought an oil is running out doomer from the 19th century into today and show him the rise in oil production thru the 20th and 21st centurys, he'd make an excuse for the oil rise not counting and then join you in shouting peak oil doom is about now!

Doesn't the data include NGL, as stated in your first post? Doesn't this also support the BP finding about substitutes now used to make up for increasing demand? If so, isn't that further proof of peak oil? Otherwise, we should not be seeing the use of substitutes but ramped up production for light oil, right? After all, didn't ARAMCO state in 2009 that they could reach 15 mb/d by 2011? If so, then we shouldn't we be seeing total production at the mid-90s at least, right?

see you all next year. Plenty more oil supply increase is going to come from the new golden age of oil supply that we live in.

Again, the same errors? Your data shows substitutes being used to meet increasing demand. To argue that we should see "plenty more oil supply increase" we should be seeing less reliance on substitutes and more light oil production.

In addition to what AirlinePilot shared, the same chart from the IEA assumes that conventional sources will not follow historical flow rates. If they do, then total energy production may decline. On top of that, we see something like a 9 pct increase in energy production for the next two decades. If energy demand goes up by around 2 pct per annum, then we may see the effects of peak oil even before oil production drops. Finally, we can see that chart in relation to one report from BP mentioned here:

That is, excess demand met by biofuels and non-conventional sources of energy, which is taking place amid high oil prices (which should lead to significant ramping up of light oil production, which isn't taking place, as seen, ironically, in the same data that meemoe_uk presented).

Thus, far from showing that peak oil is a myth, what has been taking place the past five years validates this so-called "myth".

Finally, I really don't see the point in wasting more time with meemoe_uk, so I'm putting that user account in my "ignore" list.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently released full-year 2011 world oil production data. In this post, I would like show some graphs of recent data, and provide some views as to where this leads with respect to future production.World oil supply is not growing very muchThe fitted line in Figure 1 suggests a “normal” growth in oil supplies (including substitutes) of 1.6% a year, based on the 1983 to 2005 pattern, or total growth of 10.2% between 2005 and 20011. Instead of 10.2%, actual growth between 2005 and 2010 amounted to only 3.0% including crude oil and substitutes.

It is easy to find small opportunities where it looks possible to increase oil production, but on a world-wide basis, it appears likely that at best, very slow growth will continue. The oil production of China and Russia were previously increasing, but now seem to be hitting plateaus. Even smaller groupings, such as the FSU excluding Russia, seem to be hitting plateaus.Future prospects for oil supply look to be worse, especially if Iranian exports are taken off line, or if there are unexpected surprises on the downside. One concern is that political disruptions may take oil production offline in additional countries. Anther is that financial disruptions (perhaps related to European debt defaults) may lead to lower oil prices, cutting off some marginal supply.On balance, it would appear that at best, oil production in the near future will be virtually flat, leading to more spiking of oil prices and greater world economic problems. Another possibility is that world production will begin to decline. The likelihood of decline would appear to be increased if more oil exporters encounter political disruptions, or if the world enters a major recession leading to an oil price decline.